Do you think smoking should be banned in all public places across the USA?

[alkemical]

blargh!

if i could get like nicorette that wouldn't make me want to quit, i'd love it! I actually like to smoke.

[Hogan11]

You think that's bad Ames? You should see it when one of those spit cups gets accidently knocked over......

I'd rather put up with smoke and ashtrays anytime.

[MajikMan7]

Yes I do. The city I live in right now is smoke free and I love it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Do you think smoking should be banned in all public places across the USA?

Absolutely! If smokers want to kill themselves, fine. Just designate areas for them to do it in away from the rest of the human population.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

An establishment isn't exempt from laws just because it's private.

That's like saying I should be allowed to take out my gun and shoot somebody as long as I'm in a private establishment.

The last time I checked, taking a gun out and shooting someone is illegal anywhere. Smoking is legal. Therefore, it should be left up to the owner of the establishment whether he/she wants to tolerate smokers. Nobody is forcing you to go into bars/restaurants where smoking is allowed.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

The last time I checked, taking a gun out and shooting someone is illegal anywhere. Smoking is legal. Therefore, it should be left up to the owner of the establishment whether he/she wants to tolerate smokers. Nobody is forcing you to go into bars/restaurants where smoking is allowed.

This argument doesn't work. Employers, by law, must provide safe working conditions for employees. Those that don't are liable for huge lawsuits as they should be and or criminal charges. Smoking is against the law in many places.

[REB]

! Typical liberal PC attitude. We know what's best for you and everyone will do it our way or else. Doesn't matter if it's your business or not. We say you can't so you can't. End of discussion. Now on to the next law we can shove down the throats of the poor "less intelligent" among us.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

The last time I checked, taking a gun out and shooting someone is illegal anywhere. Smoking is legal. Therefore, it should be left up to the owner of the establishment whether he/she wants to tolerate smokers.

But both actions cause harm to people - legal or not.

You shouldn't have a "right" to expose the public to a health hazard just because you own an establishment - particularly if that establishment is open to the general public.

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Nobody is forcing you to go into bars/restaurants where smoking is allowed.

You shouldn't have the right to force the general public out of these establishments (given that they are open to the public) by creating a health hazard.

The rights of a few orally fixated, self-destructive morons shouldn't trump the rights of the general public.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by REB

! Typical liberal PC attitude. We know what's best for you and everyone will do it our way or else. Doesn't matter if it's your business or not. We say you can't so you can't. End of discussion. Now on to the next law we can shove down the throats of the poor "less intelligent" among us.

It isn't a "typical liberal PC attitude" - it's a grownup attitude.

Just like the grownups have to step in when some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car after imbibing too many shots of the last legal drug.

That's what happens when your irresponsible behavior poses a danger to the community.

[SoCalBronco]

Yes.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by REB

! Typical liberal PC attitude. We know what's best for you and everyone will do it our way or else. Doesn't matter if it's your business or not. We say you can't so you can't. End of discussion. Now on to the next law we can shove down the throats of the poor "less intelligent" among us.

I'm sure you said the same thing when they banned drinking and driving and enacted seatbelt laws.

And for the record, the laws apply to everyone, not only you "less intelligent" fellers.

[REB]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

I'm sure you said the same thing when they banned drinking and driving and enacted seatbelt laws.

And for the record, the laws apply to everyone, not only you "less intelligent" fellers.

Doh! hahaha good one...

And no to the drinking and driving laws but yes to seatbelt laws. I see a big difference between getting behind the wheel of a car with a bottle of gin pulsing thru your veins and smoking a cigarette in a privately owned establishment where the owner allows smoking.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by REB

I see a big difference between getting behind the wheel of a car with a bottle of gin pulsing thru your veins and smoking a cigarette in a privately owned establishment where the owner allows smoking.

Drunk drivers kill.

Second hand smoke kills.

You're just as dead either way.

And if the owner of a privately-owned establishment opens that establishment to the general public, then he shouldn't allow the rights of a small special interest group, viz., smokers, to trump the rights (read: health and safety) of the general public.

[Crushaholic]

The people who are for banning smoking in businesses should start lobbying to get cigarettes outlawed altogether. That would be fine with me. If secondhand smoke is such a health hazard, ban tobacco. I have no problem with that. I'm not a smoker. As long as it's legal to smoke tobacco products, there shouldn't be a general ban on where they can smoke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

As long as it's legal to smoke tobacco products, there shouldn't be a general ban on where they can smoke.

That's like saying "as long as it's legal to buy alcohol, there should be no restrictions on where you can drink it."

And you're not just talking about any legally-sold product here - you're talking about a product which adversely impacts the health of everyone who is exposed to it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The fact that tobacco is legal only guarantees your right to use tobacco - it doesn't guarantee some 'right' to use it wherever and whenever you want.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by REB

Doh! hahaha good one...

And no to the drinking and driving laws but yes to seatbelt laws. I see a big difference between getting behind the wheel of a car with a bottle of gin pulsing thru your veins and smoking a cigarette in a privately owned establishment where the owner allows smoking.

Any privately owned businees that deals with the public has to respect rights of ALL of it's customers which means not endangering anyone's health. I have no problem if a business wants to construct an enclosure that allows smokers to smoke and keeps their smoke away form the rest of us that don't want to smoke their tobacco products.

In fact, they should be glass enclosures where everyone can watch them puff away their lives (and bring the kids to show them how absolutely absurd smoking is).

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by REB

! Typical liberal PC attitude. We know what's best for you and everyone will do it our way or else. Doesn't matter if it's your business or not. We say you can't so you can't. End of discussion. Now on to the next law we can shove down the throats of the poor "less intelligent" among us.

fact it is that isn't not a liberal PC attitude. It's a nice way for the state as a whole to make money.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

You think that's bad Ames? You should see it when one of those spit cups gets accidently knocked over......

I'd rather put up with smoke and ashtrays anytime.

oh i know man - it's fouler than foul

[Old Dude]

Well, on the one hand, I don't have any problem with smoking being banned at the workplace. And it should be banned on public conveyances, such as busses, airplanes and so forth. And it should clearly be banned in most stores.

At the other extreme, I think people should be allowed to smoke outdoors to their heart's content (excepting maybe special situations where you are seated next to people in outdoor restaurants or stadiums.) The risk of being killed from second hand smoke by some guy who you pass on the sidewalk is pretty negligible. And, obviously, people ought to be able to smoke as much as they want on their own property.

And I think the majority of peple would agree about those two extremes.

The problem is the intermediate stuff. Specifically bars and restaurants. Personally, I think this is something that should be left up to the free market system. Many people will not eat in a restaurant or patronize a bar that allows smoking. Smokers, on the other hand, would prefer places that allow it. And in some larger establishments, I think you could have smoking and nonsmoking sections. If nonsmokers were not satisfied with the precautions taken in a particular divided establishment, nothing says they have to patronize it. It would balance out, eventually.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

The problem is the intermediate stuff. Specifically bars and restaurants. Personally, I think this is something that should be left up to the free market system. Many people will not eat in a restaurant or patronize a bar that allows smoking. Smokers, on the other hand, would prefer places that allow it. And in some larger establishments, I think you could have smoking and nonsmoking sections. If nonsmokers were not satisfied with the precautions taken in a particular divided establishment, nothing says they have to patronize it. It would balance out, eventually.

It's no problem really. It's clearly common sense and logic. No employer has the right to endanger employees and customers by purposely exposing them to unsafe environments.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's no problem really. It's clearly common sense and logic. No employer has the right to endanger employees and customers by purposely exposing them to unsafe environments.

If employees and customers know from the beginning that they will probably be exposed to secondhand smoke and go there anyway, the business owner shouldn't be held liable. That's where freedom of choice comes in. I know several places in town that have stickers warning people that secondhand smoke is present.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

If employees and customers know from the beginning that they will probably be exposed to secondhand smoke and go there anyway, the business owner shouldn't be held liable.

Once again, the rights of a small special interest group, viz., smokers, shouldn't trump the rights of the general public where safe access to establishments which are open to the public are concerned.

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

That's where freedom of choice comes in. I know several places in town that have stickers warning people that secondhand smoke is present.

Establishments that allow smoking impede freedom of choice for the majority of people. For example, a club that allows smoking infringes on freedom of choice for those people who want to hear a favorite band without being exposed to a health hazard.

If the only place "Band X" is playing is a club where smoking is permitted, then I'm not free to go see "Band X' without being exposed to toxic crap in the air.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

It's no problem really. It's clearly common sense and logic. No employer has the right to endanger employees and customers by purposely exposing them to unsafe environments.

Plenty of jobs expose employees to one kind of health risk or another. Unless you want to eliminate all health workers, everyone in the mining industry, law enforcement, fire & emergency services, the transportation industry, the armed services, and virtually every other job that involves anything other than sitting in a safe little cubical.

Professional sports is clearly an unsafe environment. No one should be allowed to race cars or play contact football or scuba dive.

We are moving more and more toward a society of victims and crybabies, who have to have everything reguated for them. For the sake of safety.

[Old Dude]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

...

Establishments that allow smoking impede freedom of choice for the majority of people. For example, a club that allows smoking infringes on freedom of choice for those people who want to hear a favorite band without being exposed to a health hazard.

Selling drinks at the same establishment impedes my freedom to listen to the same band without being surrounded by drunks.

Charging people to see the same band impedes the freedom of choice for those who can't afford it.

It's a jungle out there, isn't it?